Editorial: DC gets the better of Paxo

Last week David Davis appeared in Jeremy Paxman's hotseat and looked uncomfortable throughout his interrogation.  Mr Davis allowed Mr Paxman to constantly interrupt and the interview degenerated into an unedifying and unenlightening 19 minutes and 38 seconds of Paxman showing off.  David Cameron gave a much more commanding performance today (watch now).  He refused to allow Newsnight's frontman to dominate their time together and insisted on the right to give at least two sentence answers.  At one point Mr Cameron confronted his interviewer head on:

"This is the trouble with these interviews Jeremy.  You come in, you sit someone down, you treat them like they are some cross between a fake or a hypocrite and you give no time for anyone to answer the questions.  It does your profession no favours at all."

Michael Gove, a key Cameron lieutenant, had lampooned Jeremy Paxman's interviewing style in yesterday's Times and David Cameron's Newsnight lines appeared rehearsed but they still worked.  Many Tories throughout the country would have been cheering DC on as he refused to be bulldozed by a man who has hunted and killed many previous (more experienced) political quarries.  For those of us worried about our likely next leader's ability to withstand serious scrutiny, this interview was reassuring.

The interview also succeeded in teaching us a few things about David Cameron.  We learnt that he does support extended pub licensing hours.  He also confirmed his support for tuition fees and opposition to the patient's passport.  JP suggested that these were unbelievable u-turns given that they were policies that he crafted for the last election, only six months ago.  David Cameron very coolly said that parties that lost elections had to learn from their defeats.

Jeremy Paxman asked David Cameron about drugs but we learnt nothing new.  David Cameron repeated his insistence that people have a right to a private past.

He said that he had no plans to change the party's name but also refused to rule out adding a word to the party's title, as some had suggested to him.

His one small slip-up came on gay people and adoption.  He said that he supported the right of gay people to adopt children and had abstained when the issue was debated in the Commons three years ago.  In reality he had twice voted against the right of gay people to adopt children (16 May 2002, division 244 and 20 May 2002, division 246).  He had abstained on the issue of unmarried people adopting.

Comments

[Goldie]

Even more effective was his line: "Why don't you let me get in two sentences before you interrupt.....sentence one....sentence two....and then one more!"

It's not rocket science, and I never understood *why* politicians didn't simply disarm Paxman like this.

DC may done the nation a service by slaying the Paxman dragon.

PS: I speak as a DC supporter, although one who believes DC will have to work incredibly hard to beat Labout. But I admit that Paxman's questioning seemed less intrusive than his questioning of DD. This may be due, in part, to DC's clever tactical refusal to spell out detailed policy proposals (*this* is what DD got in trouble for, as well as the personal attack against him).

[Henry Cook]

"He said that he supported the right of gay people to adopt children and had abstained when the issue was debated in the Commons three years ago. In reality he had twice voted against the right of gay people to adopt children (16 May 2002, division 244 and 20 May 2002, division 246). He had abstained on the issue of unmarried people adopting."

Is that not still consistent with what he said in the interview? He did vote for gay people to be allowed to adopt, but he also voted for unmarried people to be able to adopt. Did he not vote against the previous motions because they discriminated against straight people (or some such argument)? Therefore its not so much 'voted against the right of gay people to adopt children' as voting for the same rights to apply to straight people.

Either way, he gave clear answers to direct questions, and I think we can be proud that it was our man who told Paxman exactly where to go.

[Bob]

He seemed, well, Prime-ministerial.

Well done, Cam!

[Goldie]

I don't think we should start abbreviating an Oxonian's name as "Cam".

Let's stick with DC, or Dave.

[Ted]

Just maybe Jeremy does some preparation- DD is a self confessed Punch & Judy man, DC a more measured one; might he vary his approach? He's noticeably harder with the John Reid types.
No I think it's probably that he's another of those biased BBC types - obviously it couldn't be that Cameron is actually quite a good politician.

[Alexander Drake]

Goldie, it may have been a typo, but I liked "Labout" - might be good for a campaign button?

[Goldie]

Alexander: ah, the delights of 'human action not human design'...

[Henry Cook]

"I don't think we should start abbreviating an Oxonian's name as "Cam".

Let's stick with DC, or Dave."

I'm sure DC will be flattered to be associated with the third best university in the world (ahead of Oxford in the latest TES international table). Come on the Cam ;-)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"JP suggested that these were unbelievable u-turns given that they were policies that he crafted for the last election, only six months ago."

Cameron obviously took Thatcher's "U/you turn if you want to..." invitation too seriously. How nice to know the next few years will be characterised by inconsistency, flip-flopping and bandwagon-jumping. Any word from Smithson on whether odds are available on His Royal Camminess being ditched before the next election?

[Henry Cook]

"Any word from Smithson on whether odds are available on His Royal Camminess being ditched before the next election?"

Is that a hope or a fear?

[Ed R]

While there are seats to be won in Cambridge, I say let's keep the Cam nickname alive!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Is that a hope or a fear?"

I fear the consequences of the Conservatives choosing the wrong leader, both for the health of this party and for the health of democracy in this country.

[loyal_tory]

I have to say I agree with the editor. DC performed better than DD with Paxman. His line on Thatcherism was probably better than that managed by any of the last four party leaders (amazingly enough, considering it is now fifteen years since 1990). "I am a big fan of Mrs. Thatcher but I don't know if that makes me a Thatcherite." It was a very impressive performance.

[CJ]

I realise that this is going to be an unpopular opinion given the posts so far, but I am currently watching the Newsnight interview and am horrified by what I'm seeing. Yes in terms of performance Cameron is doing infinitely better than Davis did, but in terms of what he is saying I feel forced to the conclusion that this is a man with no principles whatsoever. As Paxman implied, Cameron appears to be doing a complete volte face on a number of issues for no other reason than that we lost the election. Fair enough to have a rethink and re-examine policy in the light of election results, but to not merely abandon polices and basically perform a complete u-turn? I hope I am reading this interview wrong, but it is not reassuring me.

[Henry Cook]

""Is that a hope or a fear?"

I fear the consequences of the Conservatives choosing the wrong leader, both for the health of this party and for the health of democracy in this country."

And you criticise DC for not giving straight answers?!! You were asking if there were odds on Cameron being dumped before the next election. Should he be elected December 6th, do you hope or fear that he will be dumped before the next election?

[hayek's grandad]

DC monstered Paxo so much that Paxo had to resort to making misleading comments after the interview was finished. Top marks to DC!!

[loyal_tory]

Surely, people are entitled to say they have changed their mind or made a mistake or that they were loyally supporting the party line even though they had come to have doubts about it? All of the leaders the party has elected have had to say this about one thing or another.

I think party members are more interested in his views now than what he thought in 2001 or years and years ago. If he says why he changed isn't that enough?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Should he be elected December 6th, do you hope or fear that he will be dumped before the next election?"

If he continues down a path of NewLabourisation of the Conservatives, then I do indeed fear that, in order to ensure the health of the party and democracy in this country, a leadership change may be required.

[john Skinner]

So Cameron has junked some unpopular policies. Well that's what politicians do.
Forget this obsession with policies. I could give you a sackful of policies and who would give a monkey's?
What the Tories need at this time is an attractive leader. The policies evolve over the next three years.
The boy David did well tonight. Paxo didn't lay a glove. Sleep easy friends.

[Editor]

What were the "misleading remarks" grandad? I didn't watch Newsnight - only the i/v itself on BBC Online.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Surely, people are entitled to say they have changed their mind or made a mistake or that they were loyally supporting the party line even though they had come to have doubts about it?"

A matter of months after that person co-ordinated our policies for an election campaign? The Cameron line of tonight "I've had a serious think and I've changed my mind" just won't wash I'm afraid. Why didn't he have a serious think when he was Head of Party Policy Co-ordination?

[Ted]

Sorry DD supporters - Cameron outperformed your man. When DD was on Newsnight I was embarrassed for him. DC chose a better background for the interview, kept control of his agenda, took Paxman on, and admitted that he'd been wrong (a good thing in a politician)
Barbara, Daniel et al - Grandpa Hayek, Jack and the rest of us can still be wrong in long term but I think you'd have to admit that your hopes/fears for DC being torn apart by Paxman haven't materialised. Take it, deal with it and move on.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"So Cameron has junked some unpopular policies." - John Skinner

That he co-ordinated. Genius.

"What were the "misleading remarks" grandad?" - Editor

Paxman's merely pointed out to viewers that Cameron lied when he said he hadn't voted against gay adoption; like you, Paxman referred to the two occasions where SuperCam did vote against.

[hayek's grandad]

Ed - JP was clearly taking the opportunity to suggest DC doesn't support gay adoption when quite clearly from his answers he does. Of course you'd expect nothing less of JP. DC clearly showed him up for what he is and JP had to use 'editrial rights' at the end to try and get the better.

[houndtang]

So you'd rather have a leader who can't win an election to a leader who can? Tis better to have a government that implements 75% of what you want than an opposition that agrees with 100% of what you want.